Power transitions
During the administrations of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) (1945 to 1978) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) (1978 to 1988), Taiwanese were called benshengren (people of this province, 本省人) and Chinese were called waishengren (people from other provinces 外省人).
Although the terms benshengren and waishengren are still in use nowadays, they are wrong since the province (sheng, 省) was abolished during the administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) (1988 to 2000).
With the abolition of the province, Taiwanese literally — and jokingly — should be called benren (本人, self-people) and Chinese, including former Taiwan governor James Soong (宋楚瑜), should be called wairen (outsiders, 外人). Ideally, both are collectively called Taiwanese.
Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was elected as the first Taiwanese president from a party other than the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for two terms (2000 to 2008).
Lee nominated Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to run for mayor of Taipei as a “new Taiwanese,” and Ma was later also elected for two terms as president (2008 to 2016). However, Ma acted more like a “new Chinese” than a “new Taiwanese.”
Thus, the KMT lost power to the DPP again, and Tsai Ying-wen (蔡英文), another Taiwanese, is now the president.
If the DPP wants to win the elections next year and in 2020, “Taiwan” and “Taiwanese” will be the master keys for success, as shown from the history of Taiwan’s power transitions.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Sharing profits with workers
Here is a scenario that everyone is familiar with: Every time workers demand that the basic salary be raised so that it covers basic living expenses, employers stand up as one and say that this will raise their costs and force companies to close down or move overseas, and that this would have an even more negative impact on workers.
Ironically, international labor data from the Ministry of Labor shows that labor productivity — production per hour — in Taiwan’s manufacturing industry has increased by an annual average of 5.2 percent over the past decade, which is higher than the US, Japan and South Korea. However, the unit labor cost — a company’s compensation cost — has dropped by 2.4 percent in Taiwan, which is also more than in other countries. This makes it clear that while businesses enjoy high-efficiency labor at lower labor costs, they are stingy and unwilling to share their profits with workers.
In practice, past data shows that Taiwan’s real GDP — also called real output — continues to grow, that business profits are stable rather than deteriorating and that the profits of listed companies continue to reach new highs. Despite this, the salaries of the salaried class, regardless of how high, have stagnated or even dropped.
Furthermore, data from the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics’ (DGBAS) that was completed late last month shows that last year’s GDP stood at NT$17.1 trillion (US$570.2 billion) and that employee compensation reached NT$7.5 trillion, which translates to 43.81 percent of GDP. This is substantially less than in 1995, when employee compensation was 50.1 percent of GDP, and in 2005, when it was 45.4 percent.
By comparison, business profits, which hovered at about 30 percent prior to 1995, has now reached 35 percent. This has caused National Development Council Deputy Minister Kao Shien-quey (高仙桂) to say that employer-employee income distribution is imbalanced and that most of the fruits of economic growth ends up in the pockets of capitalists.
In addition, DGBAS officials do not deny that labor compensation as part of GDP has been gradually falling in Taiwan since the mid-1990s, and that this drop is greater than in the US, Japan and South Korea. This is the main reason for the expanding wealth gap.
In other words, when politicians advocate raising employee salaries and offsetting that raise with corporate tax deductions, they are in fact using taxpayers hard-earned money to subsidize companies’ salary increases and transferring the cost of these tax deductions back to the public.
If this isn’t absurd, I don’t know what is.
Wei Szu-yuan
Yilan County
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS